Reviewer Guidelines

Reviewer Guidelines

We are sincerely grateful to scholars who take the time to peer review articles submitted to JNTETI. Rigorous peer review is the cornerstone of high-quality academic publishing.
The Editor relies on qualified reviewers to control the quality of manuscripts to be published. We are most grateful for reviewers who have provided selfless and constructive reviews, thereby contributing to the development of knowledge in their research area.

Reviewers’ Attitudes towards Manuscript
Reviewers shall treat manuscripts as if they were theirs and treat them the way they want. Reviewers must provide positive and critical but objective and balanced criticisms; it is impermissible for reviewers to give personal offensive comments. Review results shall be sent back to the Editor immediately.
Reviewers also serve as “journal advocates”, ensuring that only quality manuscripts are published. Therefore, the objectives of peer review are to ensure that:

  1. there are no errors in procedures and logic made;
  2. presented results support conclusions;
  3. there are no errors in citations;
  4. procedures are properly implemented and approved by the appropriate institutional committee; and
  5. manuscripts are original and significant.

Reviewer Ethics and Responsibilities
Reviewers must provide constructive opinions toward manuscripts. The decision on whether manuscripts are accepted for publication is solely the Editor’s decision.
When reviewers have biases against the authors, they are obliged to excuse themselves from the review process. Reviewers must have extensive knowledge of the topics and a clear understanding of the contexts in which the research is conducted.
The responsibilities of reviewers are summarized as follows.

  1. Reviewers must provide honest and critical assessments of the manuscript as well as give suggestions for improvement. Reviewers are not allowed to manipulate the process with the aim of forcing authors to discuss issues in which they are interested.
  2. Reviewers must maintain confidentiality about the existence and substance of manuscripts. It is inappropriate to share the manuscript and discuss it in detail with others.
  3. Reviewers are prohibited from plagiarism, such as obtaining data or new concepts from the manuscript prior to its publication, for themselves. This conduct is considered a severe violation.
  4. Reviewers must avoid conflict of interest. One example is reviewers should decline to review manuscripts in which they are involved. In addition, reviewers must avoid biases that potentially affect their review. One example is positive study result will benefit their position or having close personal or professional relationships with one or more of the authors.
  5. Reviewers should only accept manuscripts that correspond to their area of expertise.
  6. Reviewers must complete the review in a timely manner. Suppose some matters interfere with the peer review process that results in delays, they must promptly notify the Editor. It will be a major disadvantage for authors when their manuscript review process takes too long due to delays.
  7. Reviewers are responsible for reporting any suspected duplicate publication, fraud, plagiarism, or ethical concerns about the use of animals or humans in the research being reported.
  8. Reviewers must review manuscripts in a constructive and collegial manner. Reviewers must not refrain from discussing research manuscripts’ weaknesses (or strengths). No authors will be pleased if their manuscripts are declined; however, giving thoughtful reviews and appropriate improvement suggestions can be very helpful for authors.

Review Process
Reviewers can write down scores for each criterion according to their reviews in a provided score column. In addition, reviewers can give weight to each criterion. The followings are the Review Checklist Criteria  :

  1. Writing.
    • Does the manuscript follow the manuscript length and template/format as required?
    • Title: Is the title of the article straightforward and reflects the contents of the paper?
    • Abstract: Is the abstract relatively concise? Does it represent the research aims, what has been done, and what is found? Are all of them significant?
    • Are the introduction and conclusion in sync?
    • Figure: Are the figures correct? Are the figures sharp enough with letters proportional to the figure sizes? Is there a legend to explain the numbers?
    • Table: Are the tables clear, simple, and concise?
    • Writing: Are the manuscript contents understandable and concise? Do the manuscript contents use appropriate language?
    • Are bibliography and citation written in the correct format?
    • Are all citations included in the bibliography?
    • Popular names, abbreviations, symbols: Are all of them in accordance with general rules? Are there any misinterpretations?
  2. Scientific Quality.
    • Does the manuscript provide novelty?
    • Is the methodology appropriate, written in sufficient detail to permit replication?
    • Are the data adequate to support the conclusion?
  3. Publication Ethics
    • Adherence to ethics and principles for the care and use of laboratory, animals, and/or human subjects.
    • Research originality (belief that there is no indication of plagiarism).

Review Result
The review result is a recommendation with the following criteria.

  1. Accept without revision.
  2. Accept with minor revision (does not undergo a second round of review).
  3. Accept with major revision (must undergo a second round of review).
  4. Decline

The review result is in the form of reviewers’ recommendations for submitted manuscripts to the Editor. However, the final decision is the Editorial Board’s responsibility.